ReviewPain and therapy2026
Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency in Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Pain and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranscutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TcPRF) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique increasingly investigated for the management of chronic pain. However, its clinical efficacy and safety across different chronic pain conditions remains uncertain.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed from database inception to March 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating TcPRF in chronic pain conditions were included. Pain intensity, functional outcomes, and safety data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.
resultsEight RCTs were included, encompassing both musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions. TcPRF was associated with reductions in pain intensity in most studies, with more consistent effects observed in sham-controlled trials and at later follow-up time points. Functional outcomes generally improved in parallel with pain, although results varied depending on the outcome measures used. TcPRF was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. However, substantial heterogeneity was noted in patient populations, comparator interventions, treatment protocols, and outcome measures.
conclusionTcPRF appears to be a promising non-invasive treatment option for selected chronic pain conditions, particularly when a minimally invasive approach is preferred. Nevertheless, current evidence remains limited by heterogeneity and methodological variability. Further large-scale, well-designed RCTs with standardized treatment protocols and longer follow-up are required to clarify its clinical role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.